G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Navarro-Gonzalez

[9] 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [12] 13 G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, No. 2:21-cv-00355-JAM-CKD LLC, [14] Plaintiff, 15 SUA SPONTE ORDER STAYING CASE v. [16] HUGO ALEJANDRO NAVARRO17 GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A TAQUERIA LA BAMBA BAR & 18 GRILL, 19 Defendant. [20] 21 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s cross22 motions for summary judgment. Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pl.’s 23 Mot.”), ECF No. 15; Def.’s Opp’n and Mot. for Summ. J. (“Def.’s 24 Opp’n and Mot.”), ECF No. 16. The parties agree that there is no 25 genuine dispute of any material facts. See Def.’s Opp’n and Mot. 26 at 2; Pl.’s Reply at 2, ECF No. 17. Rather, the federal claims 27 turn on a legal question: whether 47 U.S.C sections 605 and 553 28 apply to internet violations. Pl.’s Mot. at 6. This issue is 1 currently before the Ninth Circuit. Id. at 6n.1 (citing G & G 2 Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Snukal, No. CV 19-07854 WDK-JC, [3] 2021 WL 4527769 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 4 21-55488 (9th Cir. May 13, 2021); G & G Closed Circuit Events, 5 LLC v. Reto, No. CV 19-07915 WDK-JC, 2021 WL 4468161 (C.D. Cal. 6 Sept. 3, 2021), appeal docket, No. 21-56055 (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 7 2021); G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Liu, No. CV 19-07896 8 WDK-JC, 2021 WL 4394600 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2021), appeal 9 docketed, No. 21-56047 (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2021)). As such, the 10 Court finds it prudent to defer ruling in this case until 11 guidance from the Ninth Circuit is available and pursuant to its 12 inherent authority, sua sponte stays the action. See Ali v. 13 Trump, 241 F.Supp.3d 1147, 1152 (W.D. Wash. 2017) (“Courts have 14 the power to consider stays sua sponte.”); see also Leyva v. 15 Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 16 1979) (“A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient 17 for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to 18 enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of 19 independent proceedings which bear upon the case.”). Because the 20 main legal issue in this case is before the Ninth Circuit, “it 21 would waste judicial resources to decide [this issue] in this 22 forum when guidance from the Ninth Circuit will be available 23 shortly. The more efficient course is to wait for a decision 24 from the Ninth Circuit [. . .]” Ali, 241 F.Supp.3d at 1153 . 25 “Considerable judicial resources may be wasted if the appellate 26 court’s controlling decision changes the applicable law [. . .]” [27] Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A stay of 28 this proceeding allows this Court “to control the disposition of eee enn eee en nnn en nn nn nn eNO III 1 the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for 2 itself, for counsel and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., [3] 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). 4 The April 5, 2022 hearing on the above-identified motions is 5 therefore vacated and this lawsuit is stayed effective the date 6 of this Order. The parties are ordered to file a joint status 7 report within ten days of a final decision by the Ninth Circuit 8 in the related litigation. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: March 30, 2022 11 kA 12 Geren aaa pebrsacr 00k